Five Ways, Especially First Way

Five Ways, Especially First Way · Found an Answer Unpostable · Back with MagnificentXXBastard

Explaining Thomas Aquinas' Proofs
7th of June 2019 | Pints With Aquinas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvqriM4gU7U

I

5:00 For St. Thomas, and me, as Geocentrics, it's the 1st way.

[the Dominican considered the third way as clearest]

II

8:13 Are you really looking at the world the way St. Thomas did?

He was a Geocentric, and he put "first mover" argument first.

Now, unity of God is a thing ... Question 11. The unity of God, Article 3. Whether God is one?

// Thirdly, this is shown from the unity of the world. For all things that exist are seen to be ordered to each other since some serve others. But things that are diverse do not harmonize in the same order, unless they are ordered thereto by one. For many are reduced into one order by one better than by many: because one is the per se cause of one, and many are only the accidental cause of one, inasmuch as they are in some way one. Since therefore what is first is most perfect, and is so per se and not accidentally, it must be that the first which reduces all into one order should be only one. And this one is God. //

And with geocentrism this is immediately apparent : stars are ordered in a way making life on earth possible (as to Sun and Moon) and also enhancing it (stars give birds the indications for where they migrate).

In Heliocentrism, any star is just like our sun (if not in complete accordance with recent discoveries of very few exoplanets, at least in traditional heliocentric thought, still apparent in Star Trek) and so any earth or solar system could have its own god - which was the error of Giordano Bruno.

MagnificentXXBastard

Wait, are you a geocentrist?

How? We literally have sattelites in orbit. We KNOW the earth is going around the sun.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MagnificentXXBastard We have satellites in orbit, agreed.

"we KNOW the earth is going around the sun" - not agreed.

MagnificentXXBastard

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
How so?

The lighter body orbits the heavier body. Thats just common sense. The earth is much lighter than the sun. Also, have you ever used a telescope? Or even binoculars to observe the night sky?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MagnificentXXBastard "The lighter body orbits the heavier body. Thats just common sense. The earth is much lighter than the sun."

It would be common sense (or sth at least vaguely like it, if not on all detailed issues) if one could limit causalities to the double one of inertia and gravitation, both of which are concerned with mass.

If you allow - not just posit, but even allow - God and angelic movers of single planets, then this conclusion becomes a non sequitur.

"Also, have you ever used a telescope? Or even binoculars to observe the night sky?"

I was at age 8 a member of MARS - Malmö Astronomiska och RymdfartsSällskap - and used their telescope in Oxie to watch the planet they are apart from acronym named for.

MagnificentXXBastard

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

You didn't really pay attention then when using the telescope and listening to the people there.

Geocentrism simply can't explain the movements of the planets. Retrograde motion for example, or planets getting larger or smaller.

It is also literally impossible to design a geocentric model of the solar system that accurately predicts where the planets will be at a given time in the future. Not possible.

Very easy with heliocentrism, the models of the solar system work and accurately predicts the location of planets in the sky at any given time in the future.

Explain that please?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MagnificentXXBastard If someone didn't pay attention, it's you.

"Geocentrism simply can't explain the movements of the planets."

With angelic movers and Tychonic orbits, yes, it can.

"Retrograde motion for example, or planets getting larger or smaller."

Sun moves around the zodiac over the year eastward (plus zodiac moves with sun westward each day, not the point), and the epicentre for a planet's movement is situated in the sun.

"It is also literally impossible to design a geocentric model of the solar system that accurately predicts where the planets will be at a given time in the future. Not possible."

It simply hasn't been done lately; and accurate predictions are not automatically given by heliocentrism, one had to correct one heliocentric prediction about Mercury in the days of Einstein, remember?

"Very easy with heliocentrism, the models of the solar system work and accurately predicts the location of planets in the sky at any given time in the future."

Except when they don't and for instance Pluto turns out not to be size of earth (as it was back when I was a member of MARS) or Mercury has a deviation from the predicted movement that Einstein takes as a tag for another spin of new theories, when angelic movers might just have been enough (not sure of the details of that affair).

Explaining is, I think, done.

MagnificentXXBastard

@Hans-Georg Lundahl

>and the epicentre for a planet's movement is situated in the sun.

So the planets move around the sun and the sun moves around the earth? wild.

>It simply hasn't been done lately

Actually, has been done, you know, never. There is no predictive model of geocentrism. I wonder why ^^. On the other side, making a predictive model with heliocentrism is incredibly easy and you can find them online. They are completely accurate and predict exactly what you will see on the night sky. again, i wonder why.

>Except when they don't and for instance Pluto turns out not to be size of earth

incomplete knowledge about celestial bodies mass or size has nothing to do with the validity of the heliocentric model.

>Mercury has a deviation from the predicted movement

General relativity also affecting the movement of mercury due to the huge mass of the sun is also not invalidating the heliocentric model, as soon as the relativistic "force" exerted by the sun on mercuries orbit was understood, it was perfectly predictive and worked 100% flawlessly.
Unlike, you know, any geocentric model ever.

In general, what works is true, and what doesn't work is false. Geocentrism doesn't work.

And what about all the scientists looking into space through telescopes, all the hobby astronomers, the people sending rockets to mars and venus?

they are all lying? seriously? take off the tinfoil hat.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MagnificentXXBastard "So the planets move around the sun and the sun moves around the earth? wild."

Actually not. If there is God and if there are angels.

It would be if only inertia and gravitation were available.

"Actually, has been done, you know, never. There is no predictive model of geocentrism. I wonder why ^^. On the other side, making a predictive model with heliocentrism is incredibly easy and you can find them online. They are completely accurate and predict exactly what you will see on the night sky. again, i wonder why."

Inaccurate history. Fake news in your science class. Ptolemy, Copernicus, Tycho, Kepler were Geo - Helio - Geo - Helio, and each was more predictively accurate than previous despite the zig zag of overall paradigm.

"incomplete knowledge about celestial bodies mass or size has nothing to do with the validity of the heliocentric model."

With Newtonian physics to it, yes it has.

"General relativity also affecting the movement of mercury due to the huge mass of the sun is also not invalidating the heliocentric model, as soon as the relativistic "force" exerted by the sun on mercuries orbit was understood, it was perfectly predictive and worked 100% flawlessly."

Until next time they have a flaw.

"Unlike, you know, any geocentric model ever."

According to your physics teacher's fake news.

"And what about all the scientists looking into space through telescopes, all the hobby astronomers, the people sending rockets to mars and venus? they are all lying?"

Who said anything about them lying?

"seriously? take off the tinfoil hat."

Keep it for someone who does consider each and everyone of them a liar.

MagnificentXXBastard

@Hans-Georg Lundahl >Actually not.

Actually yes. Because that'S way farther off from reality than even the traditional geocentrist model where everything rotates around the earth. The night sky wuld look COMPLETELY different and the planets would vary in size a crazy amount over the year, and their lanes totally different. This "model" is even more ridiculous than traditional geocentrism. How did you arrive at that?

>With Newtonian physics to it, yes it has.

explain how. We got better data, and now it works out. How is that a problem for heliocentrism? Of course you're not gonna be accurate the first time you discover a very distant, small, unlit planetary body. Especially with technology at the time.

>Inaccurate history.

No, completely accurate history. There is no working geocentric model with predictive quality that is not somehow wrong. If there is, CITE IT.
None of the geocentrists you mentioned had a working, predictive model. Now, explain how heliocentrist models can be 100% accurate and predict the position of every celestial body so easily if they are WRONG? this should not be possible. Awaiting your explanation.

>Until next time they have a flaw.

No, there is not any flaw with the orbit of mercury. It behaves exactly as predicted and the orbit is just as calculated. That was not the case before we found out about relativity, but now it is the case.

>According to your physics teacher's fake news.

Then name one :)

>Who said anything about them lying?

You kind of imply it, because none of them are geocentrists lmao. If not, please elaborate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MagnificentXXBastard "Actually yes. Because that'S way farther off from reality than even the traditional geocentrist model where everything rotates around the earth."

Obviously you have never heard of either Tychonian orbits or angelic movers.

"The night sky wuld look COMPLETELY different"

Name one difference?

"and the planets would vary in size a crazy amount over the year,"

I thought planets varying in size was your argument against "traditional geocentrist model" (Ptolemaic).

"and their lanes totally different."

Namely?

"This "model" is even more ridiculous than traditional geocentrism. How did you arrive at that?"

Tycho Brahe, Danish astronomer in what is now Sweden. Plus Riccioli taking into account the elliptic shapes of Tycho's disciple Kepler.

Angelic movers were already traditional in Western Catholicism.

"explain how. We got better data, and now it works out."

We've got better data that can equally be used to update Riccoli's model.

"How is that a problem for heliocentrism?"

The epistemological problem is : how do you exclude God, how do you exclude angelic movers?

"Of course you're not gonna be accurate the first time you discover a very distant, small, unlit planetary body. Especially with technology at the time."

Very good excuse for inaccuracies in historic geocentric models too.

"No, completely accurate history. There is no working geocentric model with predictive quality that is not somehow wrong. If there is, CITE IT. None of the geocentrists you mentioned had a working, predictive model."

When it comes to predicting orbits, yes they do. If give the same updates from observations you use for heliocentric ones.

"Now, explain how heliocentrist models can be 100% accurate and predict the position of every celestial body so easily if they are WRONG?"

They have been thought 100 % accurate before and then shown slightly wrong.

"No, there is not any flaw with the orbit of mercury. It behaves exactly as predicted and the orbit is just as calculated."

I didn't claim the next flaw would pertain to the orbit of Mercury. I claimed the orbit of Mercury was a flaw then, the exact nature of Pluto more recently, and one can expect other flaws to be just around the corner.

"That was not the case before we found out about relativity, but now it is the case."

Newtonian predictions could have worked geocentrically with angelic movers. Einsteinian can. The next heliocentric paradigm will arguably also beaccessible to geocentrism of the Tychonian type, with angelic movers.

"Then name one :)"

I think I named Tycho's. I think I mentioned Kepler's essential improvement was elliptic orbits which was accepted by Tychonian Riccioli. They did not give wildly aberrant results for predictions, they gave about as accurate predictions as one could get.

"You kind of imply it, because none of them are geocentrists lmao. If not, please elaborate."

Selective incompetence due to paradigm bias is clearly a preferrable explanation over lying, for most cases. Oh, by the way, I speak of one which does not actually affect the results they achieve, only their interpretation of them.

MagnificentXXBastard

>I thought planets varying in size was your argument against "traditional geocentrist model" (Ptolemaic).
>and their lanes totally different.

Actually, I was misunderstanding what you were claiming, sorry. After thinking about it more, you are correct that it would largely appear the same for bodies of the solar system. What WOULD be different however are the stars. We observe stellar parallax for example.

> Riccioli

Just looked this guy up, he sais half the planets were moving around the sun and the other half around the earth?
This seems like it would produce different observations.

>We've got better data that can equally be used to update Riccoli's model.

It can't, because there is no real predictive model there. Only continuing from observations. I can give a heliocentrist the mass and distance from the sun of a planet, and he can calculate orbital veliocity accurately and make predictions.
A geocentrist can't. He can merely look at the night sky and draw. He can't calculate anything from data we give him about the planets.

Now, if heliocentrism is not true, why can we perfectly calculate things like speed, position, phases etc. using merely gravity and relativity? IF this is not accurate, why do our equations provide these results that match what we observe?
This would not be possible if the model were inaccurate.

>Very good excuse for inaccuracies in historic geocentric models too.

What do you mean? Geocentrists never bothered to estimate a planets mass, because it was utterly irrelevant since they don't care about gravity. So more data would not help their models at all.

>The epistemological problem is : how do you exclude God, how do you exclude angelic movers?

Simple: We have a working model of the solar system (and distant planets, stars, black holes etc.) that explains the motions of all celestial bodies known to us pretty much perfectly.

There is no need to invent some magical, contrived force that cancels out gravity and makes everything "just so" that we can adhere to archaic models of the night sky. This would be throwing a lot of useful calculations and predictions out the window and replacing them by contrived, entirely unproven magical forces that "just work" with no predictive quality whatsoever.

If you want scientists and people in general to respect and adopt your model, show where it is BETTER than what we have. Show how it explains observations better, makes better predictions, and is mathematically more solid. Until then, people won't see any value in adopting your system, which is why it was abondoned in the first place despite the church doing it's best to keep it relevant, even burning people at the stake over it. lmao.

>I didn't claim the next flaw would pertain to the orbit of Mercury. I claimed the orbit of Mercury was a flaw then, the exact nature of Pluto more recently, and one can expect other flaws to be just around the corner.

I already explained to you, none of these are "flaws" in heliocentrism.
Also, these flaws were known for a long time before they were solved. mercuries orbit was unexplainable using gravity alone since newton. Meaning it was known for a long time. Flaws don'T "come around the corner". They exist after you adopt a model to explain something. There are no flaws in heliocentrism, because we had the model for a long time and nobody noticed any flaws with it in the hundreds of years since then.

>The next heliocentric paradigm will arguably also beaccessible to geocentrism of the Tychonian type, with angelic movers.

What does that even mean lmao, your entire system is magic. Of course you can explain everything with it, you're just going to say that it was the angels and God moving everything "just so" without having to do any calculations.

Extremely easy and convenient, but sadly entirely useless because it has no proof and no predictive quality whatsoever. The laziest of all cosmological systems.

>I think I named Tycho's

Which is not 100% accurate with respect to the stars viewn from earth.

>Oh, by the way, I speak of one which does not actually affect the results they achieve, only their interpretation of them.

This is not possible man. We have spaceborne telescopes, we send rockets to mars and outside fo the solar system and in none of the calculations we use angels or God to get there, because gravity and relativity accurately describe the system. If the Sun was moving around earth , we would see it and we would have to account for it in space travel. Hell, we saw the entire solar system from voyager. You think none of these people would have told the truth?
You would be an eternal legend in the scientific world if you managed to disprove heliocentrism and oribtal mechanics after SUCH a long time.

Every scientist would be frothing at the mouth for an opportunity to discover smth like that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MagnificentXXBastard Just one for now, will be back later:

"What WOULD be different however are the stars. We observe stellar parallax for example."

With angelic movers, that phenomenon need not be parallax. BBL, internet time running out a bit.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, one more:

"Just looked this guy up, he sais half the planets were moving around the sun and the other half around the earth? This seems like it would produce different observations."

Did he? According to what source?

As far as I know he was into Tychonian plus elliptic orbits.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Three:

" I can give a heliocentrist the mass and distance from the sun of a planet,"

Like Pluto?

Seriously, the "mass of the planet" is concluded FROM the orbit. No wonder it leads back TO it. It's just reversing the maths.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Four:

"IF this is not accurate, why do our equations provide these results that match what we observe?"

Model is made to match observations, see previous.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Five:

"Geocentrists never bothered to estimate a planets mass, because it was utterly irrelevant since they don't care about gravity."

But mass itself is derived from observed orbits.

MagnificentXXBastard

Why not make 1 comment instead of 5? kinda inconvenient.

>With angelic movers, that phenomenon need not be parallax.

So God moves all the stars in the universe a huge amount to the left and to the right every year? Why exactly? to confuse us and make it seem like in fact earth is orbiting around the sun?

Yeah sorry, but if your models answer to everything that does not fit it and makes it seem untrue/impossible is "angel magic" it is not a good model. It is literally unfalsifiable and unscientific.

Unfalsifiable theories are normally dismissed without discussion, they are pointless.

It has literally no predictive quality and it's explanations are completely without evidence.

Do you even believe the earth is spinning?

>Did he? According to what source?

Wikipedia.

>Seriously, the "mass of the planet" is concluded FROM the orbit. No wonder it leads back TO it. It's just reversing the maths.

Not entirely true. We calculate Plutos mass from it's interaction with it's moon, Charon. And with that, we get proper, working numbers that give us correct results on Pluto's orbit around the sun, fitting the observations we make.

Because orbital mechanics work, and you can calculate them, unlike angelic movers.

We ALSO know this is correct from observing gravity on the moon, mars, and measuring it against their calculated mass. Voilá, it matches.

How can all of this be correct and give us correct results fitting observation if in reality these bodies motion is governed by angelic movers defying gravity?

This is not just a model made to fit observations, this is cold hard math and the law of gravitation using the gravitational constant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MagnificentXXBastard "Why not make 1 comment instead of 5? kinda inconvenient."

Agreed, but I had only little time left before the computer.

"So God moves all the stars in the universe a huge amount to the left and to the right every year?"

God moves the universe, or rather what's between solid earth and empyraean heaven, full circle around earth each stellar day.

Angels move (hence "angelic movers") all the celestial bodies with some individual movement in relation to this : Sun full circle around Zodiac each year, Moon full circle around the Zodiac each month, Mercury to Pluto in Tychonian and planetary moons in hypertychonian epicycles, and also the so called fix stars (which are nevertheless fixed in relation to whereabout on Zodiac). However, no need to take the movement as involving all of the universe, in fact the largest parallax registered by project Hipparcos was a negative one, denying all of the parallaxes are that of universe in relation to single movement of earth (this is obviously put down as a measuring error). Therefore also no need to take the "parallax", or rather compound of "parallax" of "annual aberration" and "proper movement" (also called such) as anything other than just a proper movement.

"Huge amount" - if fix stars are one light day up, the "parallax" of alpha Centauri is 3/4 of and the "aberration" c. 20 times 125,576,854 meters.

"Why exactly? to confuse us and make it seem like in fact earth is orbiting around the sun?"

If your "us" means mainstream astronomers and their hangers on, partly yes. Most of mankind has lived before "parallax" was discovered or is still not aware of it and this will involve the few of us also Geocentric who live now and know it and take my (or Sungenis' different one) and therefore also escape the trap of the confusion. See II Thess 2:11. I believe Heliocentrism, wide universe, distant starlight as excluding young universe, old universe and earth, evolution, are all parts of this "strong delusion" as King James calls it.

But the more usual reason is, the angels have sth to do, when not given more wide ranging orbits like that of Sun, or that of Io.

"Yeah sorry, but if your models answer to everything that does not fit it and makes it seem untrue/impossible is "angel magic" it is not a good model. It is literally unfalsifiable and unscientific."

If your exclusion of angelic movers is unfalisfiable, it is unscientific? Seriously. You could exclude angelic movers by proving materialism. By "unfalsifiable" you do not here mean "unfalsifiable by any means" but "unfalsifiable by means of physical calculations". Indeed. Any movement visible to us produced by blind physics could in some ways be mimicked with movements looking the same but produced by wills.

"Unfalsifiable theories are normally dismissed without discussion, they are pointless."

If presence of angelic movers is "unfalsifiable", so is their absence. At least to your type of observers who would always look for a blindly physical reason. But Heliocentrism cannot be proven without this absence of a God moving the universe East to West and of angels moving the celestial bodies, therefore Heliocentrism is equally "unfalsifiable".

"It has literally no predictive quality"

"Predictive" is overrated. The Pythia had predictive qualities, nevertheless it was demons playing with self fulfilling prophecies or vague ones or both for same one.

"and it's explanations are completely without evidence."

The evidence is in the observations - that it is an evidence disputed by others for another theory doesn't make it non-evidence.

"Do you even believe the earth is spinning?"

Not the least.

"Wikipedia."

Either the article was sabotaged, or it used a paper by someone who hadn't read Riccioli through.

"Not entirely true. We calculate Plutos mass from it's interaction with it's moon, Charon. And with that, we get proper, working numbers that give us correct results on Pluto's orbit around the sun, fitting the observations we make."

I would have added, with more time, that angelic movers do not exclude masses contributing very much to orbits. Just like with a biker, the voluntary pedalling isn't all, there is also overall mass, speed, air resistance. But pedalling and wheel turning keep the bike on the right track.

"Because orbital mechanics work, and you can calculate them, unlike angelic movers."

And you can calculate the speed and mass of a bike with biker, but not next pedal move or wheel turn.

"We ALSO know this is correct from observing gravity on the moon, mars, and measuring it against their calculated mass. Voilá, it matches."

You have been so far lucky when it comes to Pluto, Mars and Moon. But the masses could also be right.

"How can all of this be correct and give us correct results fitting observation if in reality these bodies motion is governed by angelic movers defying gravity?"

Does a biker actually defy the inertial movements of his bike?

"This is not just a model made to fit observations, this is cold hard math and the law of gravitation using the gravitational constant."

That will give you a rough overview, of periodicity, but will not account for interference of gravitation or initial point of presence on the orbit.

Continues under:
Found an Answer Unpostable

MagnificentXXBastard

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No answer? I was just feeling we were getting somewhere.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MagnificentXXBastard Look up the blog Assorted retorts with the post Found an Answer Unpostable

I tried to link but link disappeared from here.

III

14:02 In third way, you have existential dependence, but in first way, you have (as Riccioli pointed out he meant) God moving the universe around earth.

Outer bodies moving inner ones actually do give a very neat series where you need present causality, not past, which makes St. Thomas' view unlike the watchmaker analogy.

The primum mobile is presently moving, because God is presently moving it, Himself unmoved.

MagnificentXXBastard

I don't see the argument here. Why does everything need God to keep it moving once the universe started? You have a defined set of initial conditions and rules governing the interactions of our matter.

No need to "keep everything moving". The stage is set and the actors on stage, the job of the writer is done.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MagnificentXXBastard It"s not a question of getting the universe started, but of keeping it going.

The act of God in astronomy is for instance to move the aether from ocean level to star level around the earth.

It is a circular movement, and it would stop if it weren't kept going.

MagnificentXXBastard

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
1) wtf is "Aether"? Thats not a scientific term.
2) That is also not how motion works. Something stays in motion until a force stops it. No need to keep anything going.

So no god needed, inertia got you covered.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MagnificentXXBastard "1) wtf is "Aether"? Thats not a scientific term."

Used to be and I'm reviving it. The "fluid" in which atoms are bubbles, light is ripples and vectors take place.

"2) That is also not how motion works. Something stays in motion until a force stops it. No need to keep anything going. So no god needed, inertia got you covered."

Would be true of rectilinear motion at constant speed. Any circular movement by definition involves "acceleration" since not just shifts of speed but also of direction are acceleration.

Plus, taking this equivalence of rectilinear motion at constant speed with absolute rest is perhaps even unproven.

[If he had paid attention on this one, he would not have asked so under II if I even believed earth spins, since the argument here is God makes the universe spin around earth (the parts visible and under the empyraean heaven).]

IV

14:57 What causes the walls to stand, foundation, what causes the foundation to stand - earth.

And then you have whether earth is self subsistent or not, if not something else is keeping it in existence.

And keeping it unmobile.

Now, that would be a second way argument for God according to the hanging lamp as starting point.